You're talking about different cuts of meat. I dunno what part of Australia you're from, but here in Brisbane, it's fairly uncommon to find a regular cut of beef (rump, blade, chuck) under 400g at the supermarket (Coles/Woolworths).

You're talking about different cuts of meat. I dunno what part of Australia you're from, but here in Brisbane, it's fairly uncommon to find a regular cut of beef (rump, blade, chuck) under 400g at the supermarket (Coles/Woolworths).

I'm in Brisbane, and I wouldn't consider blade or chuck good for anything besides stewing. Typical scotch fillets are 200-250g, and what they call "porterhouse" (= NY Strip) is about the same.

I'm in Brisbane, and I wouldn't consider blade or chuck good for anything besides stewing. Typical scotch fillets are 200-250g, and what they call "porterhouse" (= NY Strip) is about the same.

I said nothing about the quality of the meat, only the regular cuts. The 400-500g cuts of steak for $10-15/kg are far more popular than the 200-300g cuts for $18-20/kg for obvious reasons.

Originally Posted by circusmidget

Edit: That site gives about 1.5x the amount of protein for the same cut/weight as my source.

WolframAlpha gives the average of a collection of data. From the website;

We aim to collect and curate all objective data; implement every known model, method, and algorithm; and make it possible to compute whatever can be computed about anything. Our goal is to build on the achievements of science and other systematizations of knowledge to provide a single source that can be relied on by everyone for definitive answers to factual queries.

WolframAlpha gives the average of a collection of data. From the website;

Thanks for that. Sounds more reliable than some of my sources, on the face of it.

Originally Posted by WonderPug

I've eaten at a number of Sydney steak houses and I've enjoyed 16 to 32 ounce ribeye steaks, for example at Iceberg*.

I'd suggest that restaurant portions are typically larger than supermarket ones. I'd expect a ribeye of about 300g to be the norm at a restaurant. I don't normally go 'supersize' on my order though, as you can probably imagine from my stats.

There's nothing wrong with those cuts, it's just that they're not suited to fast, dry cooking methods such as frying or grilling and as such I wouldn't consider them a normal choice for "steak."

Again I'm not quite sure why you're talking about cooking methods or quality. Despite what you would consider a normal choice for whatever reasoning, big chain supermarkets still stock and sell more of the cheaper cuts simply because you're getting more bang for your buck. That's what makes them a regular choice.

I do agree with you on what you said, but it's irrelevant to the point I'm trying to make.

Edit: Out of curiousity what website were you using? I've found CalorieKing.com.au to have false information in the past.

I really feel sorry for you, r^10. Some much rage, so much dissatisfaction in life, so my resentment.

I\'m not rhizome you cherry-picking Pubmed ninja. I have no idea why you\'re so obsessed with the idea that I MUST be rhizome but I\'m not. In fact the phaggot negged me several times after I showed him wrong.

Again I'm not quite sure why you're talking about cooking methods or quality. Despite what you would consider a normal choice for whatever reasoning, big chain supermarkets still stock and sell more of the cheaper cuts simply because you're getting more bang for your buck. That's what makes them a regular choice.

I'm talking about it because this discussion began with what was considered a normal typical steak. You're comparing leaner cuts not supposed to be used as steak, so I didn't think it was really appropriate for the discussion. Not trying to be a prick, just saying that the macros for blade weren't really relevant imo (but maybe I'm just being pretentious bastard, I don't know).

Originally Posted by YeomenKek

Edit: Out of curiousity what website were you using? I've found CalorieKing.com.au to have false information in the past.

I've definitely used CalorieKing in the past, but I'm not sure exactly what I used for that one. I tend to look at a few and take the most pessimistic one.